DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Action/Claims
Claims 11-17 are under examination in this office action.
Examiner Suggestion
The examiner suggests rewriting claim 12 to read as follows: The method of claim 11, wherein the composition further comprises (D) an agrochemically acceptable excipient; and (E) at least one dispersing agent, at least one binding agent, at least one wetting agent, or at least one defoamer.
Claim Objections
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: “dicotyledonous weeds of the genera” should be deleted from the claim as weeds are to be selected from the genera.... and as such, separating the genera by monocot or dicot is unnecessary to the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 16 is also indefinite because it recites wherein within the combination the pyrazosulfuron…present at about 1.0 weight % by total weight of the composition. However, claim 16 depends from claim 15 which depends from claim 11 and the composition is not within the combination as claim 16 reads which is opposite to what claim 11 now recites, because in amended claim 11 the combination is within the composition (i.e. a part of the composition) as per amended claim 11, from which claim 16 ultimately depends. Thus, claim 16 makes it unclear what applicants are actually trying to claim in claim 16 because claim 16 is now opposite to claim 11 from which it depends. The examiner believes based on the specification and amended claim 11 that claim 16 should recite: “…wherein within the composition the pyrazosulfuron…present at about 1.0 weight % based on the total weight of the composition” which would overcome this rejection.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 15 depends from claim 11, and claim 15 still states that the combination of claim 11 is in the form of a granular formulation. Claim 11 recites that the combination consists of only the claimed pyrazosulfuron-ethyl (which exists at room temperature, atmos. pressure as a solid), 2,4-D (also a solid), and clomazone (also a solid). Consisting of/consists of language is closed to any and all other components, i.e. applicants cannot add anything to the combination they claim in claim 11 unless it is specifically claimed in claim 11. It is not clear from applicant’s claims or specification how applicants can form the claimed granular formulation which contains all three active agents in the granules (the claim states the combination is in the form of a granular composition) without the presence of excipients to hold the active agents together? Thus, it appears that applicants are trying to add components to the combination in order to form the claimed granular composition (formulation). Thus, the examiner will then interpret claim 15 as the composition (i.e. applicants combination and excipients) is in the form of a granular formulation. The examiner notes that changing “combination” in claim 15 to composition would overcome this rejection.
Claim 16 is also rejected because it depends from claim 15 and does not resolve the above issue.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 11-15, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN105994333 (‘333) and further in view of Herbicides et al. (https://agritech.tnau.ac.in/crop_protection/pdf/7_%20Major_use_herbicides.pdf), EPA (https://www3.epa.gov/pesticides/chem_search/ppls/000279-03158-20030331.pdf), Liu (US20140031231, previous action), Khan et al. (Pak. J. Weed Sci. Res., 2012, 18(4), 541-552).
Determination of the scope and content of the prior art
(MPEP 2141.01)
Regarding claims 11-12, 14, and 17, ‘333 teaches ternary combinations of pyrazosulfuron, dimethazon (clomazone), and butachlor which are useful as herbicides (See entire document; claims; abstract; paragraphs 3-6, and 11 after summary of invention heading in English translation). ‘333 also teaches that these combinations of pyrazosulfuron, clomazone and butachlor, were known in the art to be effective for controlling Echinochloa/barnyard grass (claim 17) when applied in effective amounts (See entire document; claims; abstract; paragraphs 3-6, and 11-12 after summary of invention heading in English translation; pg. 4/9 paragraph just after properties of product (purposes); and Material to be tested: Echinochloa/barnyard grass).
As taught by Khan Echinochloa (member of Poacea) is a known abundant weed in sugarcane crops (See Khan: abstract; pg. 544-545, bridging paragraph and table 3).
Regarding claim 12, ‘333 teaches wherein the active agent combination/composition is applied in conjunction/concurrently with agrochemically acceptable excipients, e.g. solvents and at least one binding agent/thickening agent and/or a dispersing agent/emulsifier (see abstract; claims; paragraphs 3-6, and 11-12 just after summary of invention heading in English translation).
Regarding amended claims 11 and 12, ‘333 teaches wherein the pyrazosulfuron is used in amounts of about 2% by weight based on the weight of the composition when the herbicides are applied in conjunction with carriers/excipients etc. (see second paragraph after heading for embodiment 1, Claims; see 4th paragraph after Summary of invention heading in English translation).
Ascertainment of the difference between prior art and the claims
(MPEP 2141.02)
Regarding claims 11-15 and 17, ‘333 and Khan together do not teach wherein the ternary composition comprises 2,4-D in place of the butachlor or wherein the composition is in the form of a granule. However, these deficiencies in ‘333 and Khan are addressed by Herbicides, EPA, Khan, and Liu.
Regarding claims 11-14, and 17, Herbicides teaches that it is known to use 2,4-D ethyl ester (2,4-DEE)/2,4-D ethyl (Claim 13) and wherein the herbicide is effective against a mixed spectrum of weeds, e.g. a broad spectrum of weeds, specifically Echinochloa in sugarcane and rice, etc. (See numbered pg. 9). Herbicides also teaches that the combination of 2,4-D ethyl ester and clomazone are known to be effective against Echinochloa in rice (See numbered pg. 25)
EPA teaches that clomazone is known in the art to be effective for treating a mixed spectrum of weeds including Echinochloa/barnyardgrass in sugarcane, rice, etc. (See pg. 2/20, left col.; pg. 15/20 sugarcane section, etc.).
As taught by Khan Echinochloa (member of Poacea) is a known abundant weed of sugarcane (See Khan: abstract; pg. 544-545, bridging paragraph and table 3) and as such this combination would be expected to be useful in controlling weeds in sugarcane.
Regarding claim 15, Liu teaches mixtures of clomazone and 2,4-D which are formed into granules which also reads on the instant claim 15 for use as herbicides (See example 28).
Finding of prima facie obviousness
Rationale and Motivation (MPEP 2142-2143)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art at the time the invention was made to follow the teaching of ‘333, Herbicides, EPA, and Liu and prepare the herbicidal method, which comprises applying a herbicidal composition comprising a combination consisting of a clomazone, 2,4-D ethyl, and pyrazosulfuron and/or derivatives thereof as instantly claimed because ‘333 Herbicides, and Liu suggest that in order to control undesired plants growth, more than one herbicide is routinely useful and each of the claimed herbicides is known to have activity against Echinchloa sp./barnyard grass as taught by the combined references above. Further, both butachlor and 2,4-D/2,4-D ethyl were known to be used in controlling Echinochloa as discussed above, which is a predominant/abundant/common weed in sugarcane as is taught by Khan and as such it would have been obvious to substitute 2,4-D ethyl for the butachlor in ‘333 in order to form the claimed ternary combination/composition comprising the combination because it was known to use 2,4-D ethyl to control Echinochloa and it was known to mix it with other herbicides including the instantly claimed clomazone to control Echinochloa. Further, it is known, it is prima facie obvious to combine known herbicides each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, e.g. controlling Echinochloa, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose.... [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art.
Finally, it would have been obvious to formulate the composition as instantly claimed and as taught by ‘333 together with the combined references into the claimed granules because it was known in the art to formulate herbicides specifically clomazone, 2,4-D, etc. into granules and as such it would be obvious to formulate the ternary combination instantly claimed into a composition which is in the form of granules for easy application and control of weeds in various areas.
In light of the forgoing discussion, the Examiner concludes that the subject matter defined by the above claims would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art within the meaning of 35 USC 103(a).
From the teachings of the references, it is apparent that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in producing the claimed invention. Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, as evidenced by the references, especially in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
Claim 16 is/are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN105994333 (‘333) and further in view of Herbicides et al. (https://agritech.tnau.ac.in/crop_protection/pdf/7_%20Major_use_herbicides.pdf), EPA (https://www3.epa.gov/pesticides/chem_search/ppls/000279-03158-20030331.pdf), Liu (US20140031231, previous action), and Khan et al. (Pak. J. Weed Sci. Res., 2012, 18(4), 541-552) as applied to claims 11-15, and 17 above and further in view of Yang (CN101352171A, from previous action).
Determination of the scope and content of the prior art
(MPEP 2141.01)
The combined references together teach claims 11-15, and 17 as discussed above and incorporated herein.
Ascertainment of the difference between prior art and the claims
(MPEP 2141.02)
Regarding claim 16, The combined references teach wherein pyrazosulfuron is used in amounts of about 2% by weight of the applied composition but do not teach using pyrazosulfuron-ethyl in amounts of about 1% by weight of the applied composition as is instantly claimed. However, this deficiency in the combined references is addressed by Yang.
Yang teaches a herbicidal composition for controlling barnyard grass (Echinochloa) which comprises “pyrazosulfuron-ethyl” as one of the herbicides, and wherein the pyrazosulfuron-ethyl can be used in an amount of 1% by weight and wherein the pesticidal composition can be prepared into water-dispersible granules (see English translation: Abstract; Original publication: pg. 4, ln. 10-11, structure of pyrazosulfuron-ethyl; English translation: [0007]). It should be noted that the pyrazosulfuron-methyl disclosed in the Eng. Translation copy is incorrect, as evidenced by the Chinese chemical name and structure as seed below from pg. 4 of the original Chinese publication:
PNG
media_image1.png
180
602
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Yang also teaches that the herbicide composition containing the pyrazosulfuron-ethyl when used in combination with other herbicides can provide good and extended weeding/herbicidal effect, and can reduce cost and frequency of herbicide use (see English trans: [0007], ln. 8-9).
Finding of prima facie obviousness
Rationale and Motivation (MPEP 2142-2143)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art at the time the invention was made to add suitable amount of each active herbicide, i.e. to include about 1% by weight of pyrazosulfuron-ethyl as the pyrazosulfuron active in the composition that is being applied to weeds as is taught by the combined references because Yang teaches that pyrazosulfuron-ethyl can be used in an amount as low as 1% by weight to control barnyard grass/Echinochloa; and mix this in combination with clomazone, to provide good and extended weeding effect, and to reduce cost and frequency of herbicide use. Further, it is known to optimize the amounts of herbicides contained in herbicidal compositions in order to afford compositions which are effective for controlling various weed species as desired.
Response to Arguments/Remarks
Applicant’s amendments to the claims have rendered moot the previous 112(a) and (b) rejections which are hereby withdrawn. Applicant’s did not address the issues with respect to claim 15 and as such this 112(d) rejection remains. The examiner did add language telling applicants how to overcome this rejection but this does not change rejection of record.
Applicant’s amendments to claim 11 have also caused the new grounds of rejection under 112(b) with respect to claim 16 presented herein. Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 103 rejection were not persuasive at this time. Applicant’s arguments insofar as they pertain to the revised grounds of rejection prompted by applicant’s claim amendments are addressed herein.
Applicants first argue that they reiterate and incorporate by reference their prior art arguments regarding the base references, the examiner is not persuaded by these previous arguments for the reasons of record which are incorporated by reference herein.
Applicants then argue that at pg. 13-14, it is not obvious to combine known herbicides which are known to be effective at controlling the claimed weed species in order to form new combinations. They argue that their method is not obvious and point to the Barbieri reference from 2022 which they assert clearly rebut the idea that known effectiveness in one crop translates to effectiveness in a second crop. The examiner respectfully disagrees that the requirement/standard for an obviousness is absolute success in the second crop. The standard/requirement for obviousness rejections which are what were presented in the previous office action is a “reasonable expectation of success” not “success”/”effectiveness” in the second crop. In the instant case, each of the claimed herbicides was known to be effective for controlling the same weed species as found in sugarcane in other crops and as such it would be obvious to combine these herbicides together in order to form an effective herbicidal combination for controlling these same weed species within sugarcane with a reasonable expectation of success. Specifically, all of the instantly claimed active agents were known to be effective for controlling Echinochloa weeds, specifically barnyard grass in other crops and as is taught by Khan this is a common weed in sugarcane. If each of the claimed active agents was known to be used alone to control Echinochloa weeds/barnyard grass in other crops then it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to combine known effective herbicides for controlling Echinochloa weeds into a composition for controlling Echinochloa weeds in sugarcane because it is known, “It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose.... [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art.” In reKerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980) (citations omitted).
Applicants also argue that the combinations of herbicides can be antagonistic, synergistic, etc. when applied across crop types, etc. and that it would not be obvious to combine the claimed herbicides into applicant’s claimed combination and that conventional wisdom is not to combine herbicides the examiner respectfully disagrees because the references cited above clearly teach that it is known to combine herbicides which are known to be effective at controlling the claimed weed species in order to form new combinations which are still effective for controlling the claimed weed species and that combinations of herbicides having different modes of action such as those instantly claimed and taught/rendered obvious by the combination of references discussed above help to prevent/control the development of herbicide resistance in the weed. Thus, contrary to applicants arguments it is well known in the art to combine herbicides and form herbicidal combinations, and as such it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have combined the claimed herbicides each of which was known in the art to be effective for controlling Echinochloa which is a common weed in sugarcane plantations together in order to form an effective herbicidal combination and method for controlling Echinochloa in sugarcane, where this weed is known to be a problem.
Applicants then argue that at pg. 15 the examiner states that the Colby equation is not so widely accepted. Based on applicant’s arguments and the statements of mixture, the examiner agrees to acknowledge that the Colby equation can be used to establish unexpected/synergistic results. However, the examiner respectfully disagrees that applicants have clearly demonstrated synergy with their claimed combination. Synergy is found when the combination of herbicides together leads to improved activity over the expected additive result of each of the herbicides applied singly as calculated using the Colby equation for instance. However, applicant’s synergy calculations are incorrect in that they compare their actual observed efficacy of the three part mixture to the expected efficacy of the two part mixture which is not the proper comparative data for determining synergy. Additionally, applicant’s 3 part mixture is applied at a dose rate of 3000 g/ha, whereas the additive of the three single applications of each active add up to 4875 g/ha and as such the data for the each of the individual applications cannot necessarily be directly compared to the 3-part applied compositions as the rates of application are not the same for each of the active agents across the experiments. Additionally, even if applicant’s data does indicate synergy the examiner respectfully points out that applicant’s argued unexpected results are not at all commensurate in scope with applicants claims as applicants argued results which are only with specific amounts of each herbicide in specific ratios and with specific carriers, etc. which is much narrower than how applicant’s instant claims are written which allow for any amounts of clomazone and 2,4-D with .01 to 5 wt% (based on the total weight of the composition) of pyrazosulfuron which is much broader in scope than the compositions which were used to achieve applicant’s argued unexpected results.
It also would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art at the time the invention was made to follow the teaching of ‘333 and the combined references and prepare the herbicidal composition for use in the claimed method, which comprises a herbicide blend consisting of a combination of clomazone, 2,4-D ethyl, and pyrazosulfuron and/or derivatives thereof as instantly claimed because ‘333 together with the combined references suggest that in order to control undesired plants growth, more than one herbicide is routinely useful. Further, both butachlor and 2,4-D/2,4-D ethyl were known to be used in combinations for controlling Echinochloa as discussed above, which is a predominant/abundant/common weed in sugarcane as is taught by Khan and as such it would have been obvious to substitute 2,4-D ethyl for butachlor in ‘333 in order to form the claimed ternary combination because it was known to use 2,4-D ethyl to control Echinochloa and it was known to mix it with other herbicides including the instantly claimed clomazone to control Echinochloa.
Applicants then argue that if the prior art merely provides lists of possible ingredients it does not necessarily render obvious a specific combination picked from those lists. The examiner respectfully disagrees that instant rejection is developed from picking the specifically claimed herbicides from extensive lists of herbicides because as is clearly taught above, it is known to combine herbicides which are known to be effective at controlling the claimed weed species in order to form new combinations which are still effective for controlling the claimed weed species and that combinations of herbicides having different modes of action such as those instantly claimed and taught/rendered obvious by the combination of references discussed above help to prevent/control the development of herbicide resistance in the weed. Especially since the subcombinations of the claimed herbicides were known as discussed above and each herbicide was known to be effective for controlling weeds which are common in sugarcane. Thus, contrary to applicants arguments it is well known in the art to combine herbicides and form herbicidal combinations, and as such it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have combined the claimed herbicides each of which was known in the art to be effective for controlling Echinochloa which is a common weed in sugarcane plantations together in order to form an effective herbicidal combination and method for controlling Echinochloa in sugarcane, where this weed is known to be a problem.
Applicants then argue that the rejection improperly stitches together five disparate references. The examiner respectfully disagrees because references are analogous art to the claimed invention if: (1) the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem); or (2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention). In the instant case, all of the references are from the same field of endeavor. Specifically as related to herbicides/herbicide compositions and/or herbicidal methods of controlling weeds.
Applicants then argue that each herbicide in their combination has a different mode of action, etc. and that standard practice is to stagger not tank-mix such chemistries. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Firstly, the claimed composition does not have to be a tank mix as asserted by applicants. The composition could actually be formed after application of the three actives to the sugarcane plantation, e.g. formed in the field which would still be applying a composition with a mixed combination of active ingredients consisting of those instantly claimed which form a mixture when applied concurrently and/or immediately after each other. Further, ‘333 teaches combinations comprising pyrazosulfuron and dimethazon (clomazone) together, e.g. in a tank mix/mixture, for application as a combination of disparate actives having different modes of action (See abstract). Thus, this argument is not persuasive because it was known in the art to mix herbicides having different modes of action, etc. into tank mixes for application as a combination whether or not it is standard practice according to the Weed Society guideline as asserted by applicants. Applicants did not invent tank mixing herbicides as this was a common practice in the art and is something that one of ordinary skill in the art routinely does as is taught by ‘333 and Liu (see [0100, tank mix combinations]). Thus, the above combination still remains obvious for the reasons which are discussed above and are incorporated herein.
Applicants then argue that there is regulatory compatibility and point to pg. 14 of the EPA document and state that the EPA label expressly forbids co-application of the auxinic herbicides such as 2,4-D on sugarcane. The examiner has reviewed the sugarcane section of the EPA document (specifically typographically numbered pgs. 14-15) and cannot find this alleged teaching anywhere in the sugarcane section of this document and as such this argument is not persuasive because this section does specifically teach:
PNG
media_image2.png
98
327
media_image2.png
Greyscale
and as is evidenced by USEPA (US EPA - Pesticides - Fact Sheet for 2,4-d) 2,4-D is registered for use in sugarcane (See Use profile section, second paragraph), thus because each of the claimed herbicides is known to be useful in/registered for use in sugarcane it would be obvious to combine them together to form the claimed combination for use in the claimed method for the reasons which are discussed above and incorporated herein.
Applicants then argue claim 16 is allowable for the same reasons argued above and the examiner disagrees for the reasons previously discussed above and incorporated herein.
In light of the forgoing discussion, the Examiner concludes that the subject matter defined by the above claims would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art within the meaning of 35 USC 103(a).
From the teachings of the references, it is apparent that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in producing the claimed invention. Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, as evidenced by the references, especially in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new and revised ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Erin E Hirt whose telephone number is (571)270-1077. The examiner can normally be reached 10:30-7:30 ET M-F.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sue X Liu can be reached at 571-272-5539. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ERIN E HIRT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1616